Search This Blog

Order - XXI Rules – 54 (1A), 66 and 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for execution of the decree. sale batta was not paid.= The executing Court ought to have given time to the petitioner to pay batta. The fruits of the decree, which is obtained after so much of ordeal, cannot be denied to the petitioner on hyper-technicalities at the time when the Courts are sensitizing the people about their rights and making efforts to take justice to the doorsteps of the people. The impatience executed by the trial Court cannot be countenanced.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1091 AND 1104 OF 2013

COMMON ORDER:

Petitioner filed O.S. No.189 of 2010 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, for recovery of amount. The suit was decreed and the decree became final. Thereupon, petitioner filed E.P. No.115 of 2011 under Order - XXI Rules – 54 (1A), 66 and 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for execution of the decree. It was noticed that sale batta was not paid. Petitioner filed E.A. No.26 of 2013 with a prayer to condone the delay of35 days in filing batta. The executing Court passed order dated 31-01-2013 dismissing the said E.A. On the same day, E.P. was also dismissed on the ground that sale batta was not paid.

3. Though the respondent was served with notice, he has not entered his appearance.

4. The executing Court ought to have given time to the petitioner to pay batta. The fruits of the decree, which is obtained after so much of ordeal, cannot be denied to the petitioner on hyper-technicalities at the time when the Courts are sensitizing the people about their rights and making efforts to take justice to the doorsteps of the people. The impatience executed by the trial Court cannot be countenanced.

5. Therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders of the trial Court in E.A. No.26 of 2013 and E.P. No.115 of 2011 dated 31-01-2013 are set aside and the E.P. is restored to its file. Two weeks time is granted to the petitioner to comply with the deficiencies, if any, in the context of deposit of batta. There shall be no order as to costs.

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …